Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-07
LIQUOR TRAFFIC
Tso Important Supreme Court Gases In
vclving tho Validity OF Prohib
itory Statutes.
Cincinnati Enquirer.

Cincinnati Enquirer
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28.-Among the
most important cases now on the docket
OF the United States Supreme court are
TWO which come up from Kansas and Hi
nois involving the validity of statutes OF
Kansas and lows regulating or prohibit
ing the liquor traffic. Both Of these
cases were argued at the last term, and
are still he;t under Amusement. They have
not yet been decided, but probably will
be st no distant day. They affect the
LIQUOR traffic throughout the Union, and
the various state laws which have been
enacted for the purpose OF regulating or
rather destroying it. In the case
coming up from Kansas Senator
Vest OF Missouri made an argument in
opposition to the state prohibition Jaw
which WAS regarded, at the time as one of
remarkable power and force of argument.
This Kansas case is maintained upon the
relations of Tuft, assistant Attorney Cen
eral, against Herman Siebold and Joseph
Hegeli1, partners in business at Atchison,
Kan, who were owners Of a brewery and
| manufacturers and sellers Of beer, upon
the allegation that they had violated the
Laws Of Kansas of February 10, 1881, and
! March I, 1855. The petition of the state
officer was to have the brewery OF the de-
! PENDANTS declared common nuisance,
and the defendants eDlJined from using
the same tor the manufacture, sale or
gift Of vinouS, spirituous or termented
liquors. The defendants admitted
taeir ownership and use the property fol
the Purposes stated, but claim that the
proceeding is in conflict with the c3nsti-
tuition of the United states, article 4, anC
also section l OF article IA; and they say
that the action Of the state amounts to
practical confscation Of their property
acquired by them prior TO the purchase
the same, and that it would bankrupt an(
ruin them. TIE cause WAS transferred
from the state court to the United StEte
circuit court, and Circuit Judge Brewe
decided it in favor of the defendants ant
against the state OF Kansas. The opinion
OF Judge Brewer is similar that in III
! Watruff case, which is one Of striking
ability. The statement Of the facts il
that case says: "Between 1870 an
1874 the defendants constructs
brewery in Lawrence, Kan
The building, machinery and fixture
were designed and adapted fer the max
ing of beer and. nothing else. For sue
purpose they were worth $4,000, 70
any other purpose not to exceed 5000
At the time of the erection OF the build
, ing, and up to 1880, the making CT bee
| was as free from tax, license or other II
striction as the milling of -four. In tbs
year constitutional amendment We
e adopted prohibiting the manufacture {
| beer except for medical, scientific 80
mechanical purposes. In 1881 and ISIS
e laws were enacted 10 carry this prohibi
, ton into effect. Under these laws
D permit was essential for the mani
t facture for the excepted purpose!
r To the defendants this permit ws
j refused. An INJUNCTION was tnereupo
o sued out from the District court eD Oil
0 ing defendants absolutely from the man
e ufacture Of beer. Thus in strict COZ
= formity to the laws OF the state, the de
s PENDANTS are prohibited from using the
e property ioI the purposes for which alol
b it is designed. adapted and VALUABLE
= and required without compensation [
e surrender S45 ,0C0 Of value which thu
= had acquired under every solemn unlin
+ tied guaranty of protection to proper
:: which constitutional declaration and Il
u underlying thought OF just and stab
d government could give"
e This case runs on all feufs with q
" action Of Kansas, now about to be I
1t viewed by the Supreme court OF {
% United States.
United States Circuit court for the xuli